MT Senator race: Public Lands
- Thread starter Sytes
- Start date
noharleyyet
Well-known member
Never figured you for an agenda 21, flat earth believer Ken.
No worry Tony, Mother Texas'll carry your 2A water.
Yep and I know better then to mix politics and the interweb. That’s Lamb’s job but he busy working on his tan.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
hmmm if I remember correctly all that happened was a bunch of guys like you made it impossible to find .22lr for 8 years...
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Fun watching Bloomberg piss his hard earned money away.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...f45dde-c676-11e8-b1ed-1d2d65b86d0c_story.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...f45dde-c676-11e8-b1ed-1d2d65b86d0c_story.html
Not that anyone is surprised.....
https://www.mensjournal.com/adventu...OYn1tGc9Dnvvag049P74ncoC-BXAmDtFix5hV1bMd7N7k
https://www.mensjournal.com/adventu...OYn1tGc9Dnvvag049P74ncoC-BXAmDtFix5hV1bMd7N7k
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Everybody gets to set their own priorities, so not taking any position on Tester, but let's be very clear on the facts - the 2nd amendment right to bear personal arms is only one supreme court justice away from disappearing (and Justice Thomas is 70). It will take hundreds and hundred of independent actions at local, state and federal levels over many years to unwind public lands, one supreme court appointment in 2021 and one more Sandy Hook with Dems in House & Senate and things will look very different than they do today for gun owners.
elkduds
Well-known member
This will continue the day after tomorrow, ongoing. It will see less daylight after the election. I will continue glassing for these threats against my public lands, and yours. I'm confident Big Fin will. Will you?
Public lands co-owners: I supported your values w my vote in CO. Thanks to you all who did likewise in your state.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
I know from your posts you are a reasonable guy and I honestly respect your opinion, can you explain your thinking here. I’m pro 2nd all the way, but honestly I’m not worried about it in the slightest. Changing the constitution would take a 2/3rds majority in both houses to begin with and that will never happen... in the case of the court a case would have to make its way to the court, even if the court is all dems this might not happen. Further in the last what 100 years there have been 4 cases related to the 2nd all of which had pro-gun right ruilings. Lower courts tend to use decisions of the Supreme Court in their decisions so likely they will rule pro-gun... and any appeal would have to have grounds to even make it to the court. I don’t think there is any way the heller decision gets overturned.
I’m not saying it’s a non issue... just that there is no amendment and/or recent three Supreme Court decisions protecting public lands. Also just logistically even if the worst happened with regard to public lands and guns, complete gun ban and full privitisation. It would be a lot easier to get back guns, change the law and turn on the factories, than to get the land back. Same goes for environmental protection/ habitat.
I bet people in DC, NYC, Chicago, California don’t feel the 2nd amendment rights of theirs are being upheld. You can’t buy ammo online in CA, but they’ve regulated all gun stores out of San Fran.
Washington state has a ballot initiative that will likely pass that will outlaw dangerous assault weapons.... like the Ruger 10/22....
It’s already a crime in Washington to hand your gun to your hunting partner when you cross a fence, unless you have performed an background check.
If you think there aren’t people that don’t want your land or your gun and are making plans to take them, you’re naive.
Washington state has a ballot initiative that will likely pass that will outlaw dangerous assault weapons.... like the Ruger 10/22....
It’s already a crime in Washington to hand your gun to your hunting partner when you cross a fence, unless you have performed an background check.
If you think there aren’t people that don’t want your land or your gun and are making plans to take them, you’re naive.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
I didn’t say I dont think there are people trying just that its not the biggest issue. This is about putting out fires and while the gun one is raging it’s not as big as the public lands one is... in my mind
Irrelevant
Well-known member
I blame the NRA likes for our current and soon to be legislation in WA. They were completely unwilling to be a part of any legislation and therefore it was written by a bunch of people who know nothing about guns or hunting. Come to find out I know two people who assisted in writing the last round, and neither thought their own legislation did what it ended up doing. They simply didn't have enough experience to draft good legislation. That's where the NRA has to lookout for what's actually best for gun owners. If WA is going to pass legislation I damn sure want someone who knows something about gun helping write it.
You know it’s been a long election season, when intelligent people say things like this.
Repeat it a few more times and you might even start to believe it.
Edit: I could have better responded by saying “I know from your posts you are a very reasonable guy and I honestly respect your opinion, can you explain your thinking here? “
Last edited:
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Only fair to start with my biases, I believe the 2nd amendment protects an individual's right bear arms, but I am not an NRA member because I find some of their views extremist and that in my view all constitutional rights have limits and responsibilities (see, "fire" in a crowded theater). My biases aside (as much as one's can be), I am a lawyer who gets paid in part to follow SCOTUS carefully so while I may be an elk hunting newbie, I actually know legal stuff.
So, a few reactions to your comments:
There have been dramatic changes in US constitutional law over the last 50 years without invoking the amendment process. I agree an actually amendment is low probability but has proven entirely unnecessary in this (and most instances).
It took less than 5 years for Heller (the most recent 2nd amendment controlling case) to go from start to finish, 3 years for Roe v. Wade and 2 year for Obergefell v. Hodges (same sex marriage). It takes very little time to push a "test case" through the system.
Surprisingly there is very little appellate court activity in this space from the civil war to the 2000 or so. In fact, very few judges, lawyers or scholars would have considered the 2nd amendment to be a personal right until the last 20 years. the 2nd amendment was about states' right to resist the federal government and as such was largely irrelevant in our modern view of the country. United States v. Miller (1939) was the seminal case that settled the matter for the 70 years prior to Heller -- Miller re-iterated that the 2nd amendment only applied to activities associated the furtherance of state militias (now commonly called the National Guard). “[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of [militia] forces” and “must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.”
That's not really how appellate practice works. You really only need to raise credible arguments. New arguments and re-iteration of old arguments (often couched as being offered in light of new circumstances) often cause district courts and appellate courts to rule against precedent. It happens hundreds of times a year (most below the social or political radar). Heller, Roe and Obergefell -- and hundreds of other precedents that have changed over the years -- are beneficiaries of this practice. The 9th circuit routinely refuses to apply SCOTUS precedent when it disagrees.
Heller and Citizens United are two cases that will be reversed as soon a there is a 5th liberal Justice -- these are stated priorities of the Dem Party and those that help shape their judicial appointments. They are the Roe of the left. I am not taking a side on these, but this is a well stated goal. There are books written about this. Liberal judges, lawyers and scholars view these has horrible law, wrongly decided and poorly reasoned - they will not be given deference for many more years to come (if ever). There is no meaningful doubt amongst SCOTUS watchers that these will be the law of the land only so long as there are 5 conservative Justices.
2nd amendment specific, Heller is the first SCOTUS case to find a private right to bear arms for self defense and to suggest that other lawful uses of firearms are also likely protected (hunting/recreation/collecting). This case is only 10 years old and was a big swing in judicial approach to this issue. Two of our current Justices signed onto the following view. Two others have since retired and been replaced by even more liberal Justices.
"Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution."
Here is a link to the dissent in Heller if you would like to see how 4 of 9 Justices view this issue (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html)
While Roberts and Kennedy have from time to time saved favorite liberal cases, there is no Justice on the left that will offer any support or comfort for a personal right to bear arms -- one more liberal Justice and the 2nd amendment will return to judicial obscurity (where it lived for the first 200+ years of this nation).
It was not my intent to compare the two, just to clarify that an often cited belief on this forum that the 2nd amendment is safe from meddling is simply not the case. Each of us may weigh PL vs 2ndA differently, but lawyers on the left and the right understand that the 2nd amendment is far from settled and could flip quite fast.
Last edited:
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
I agree. Furthermore, it's important to consider that "words matter" and when "the gun one" is expressed it really is about an issue concerning increased enforcement of firearms laws and the potential for new firearms control related legislation. The unrealistic fear which is mongered by the NRA and others who try to whip voters and donors into an unbalanced emotional frenzy is that "they are going to take your guns away from you!" Repeal of the 2nd Amendment and confiscating firearms from law abiding citizens is extremely unlikely and presently is supported by a minuscule radical element. SCOTUS does not have the authority to do it, and has the longstanding legal precedent to actually uphold it. However, the additional gun control legislation is a potential "raging fire" for which concern is warranted. Rather than be an emotional frightened over-reactionary, I contend it's prudent to be involved in discussions of just what is reasonable in terms of mitigating the current scourge of shootings, school tragedies, firearms in the wrong hands, and on and on. The divisive stance that only you and the NRA are right and everyone else is wrong may set you up for disappointment when the "other" party eventually has more influence.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Simply inaccurate. 10 years is not "longstanding" and SCOTUS can always reverse itself - both left and right are more than happy to throw stare decisis away when it suits them.
I am no friend of the NRA's approach to these issues, but as a matter of basic legal knowledge, the personal right to bear arms is a very recent view held by the slimmest of SCOTUS majorities for a very short time. (and frankly the result of a fairly strained reading).
3855WIN
Well-known member
I envy my Montana friends for having the luxury of being a one issue voter. In most of the rest of the country, we’re in a battle for the values of this great nation. Here’s an example:
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattv...tion-it-was-just-a-way-to-start-a-co-n2533619
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattv...tion-it-was-just-a-way-to-start-a-co-n2533619
EdP
Member
3855WIN, I feel the same way other than it strikes me as closed minded and isolationist rather than a luxury. Perhaps it is just the result of not having to worry about their constitutional rights their entire life but that's going to change as more and more folks from Cali move to Mt.
The idea that it takes a constitutional amendment to take away our 2nd amendment rights is idealistic. They can and have been significantly infringed in several states already, and the SCOTUS has refused to take on many 2nd amendment cases. Justice Thomas has been very vocal in his criticism of the court for treating the 2nd as a second class amendment due to the refusals.
Mt residents have every right to elect the senator of their choice but because their decision affects more than just Mt residents I wish they would consider a bigger picture.
The idea that it takes a constitutional amendment to take away our 2nd amendment rights is idealistic. They can and have been significantly infringed in several states already, and the SCOTUS has refused to take on many 2nd amendment cases. Justice Thomas has been very vocal in his criticism of the court for treating the 2nd as a second class amendment due to the refusals.
Mt residents have every right to elect the senator of their choice but because their decision affects more than just Mt residents I wish they would consider a bigger picture.
